His first point, regarding religious traditions about marriage, is both incorrect and irrelevant. For centuries, Judeo and Islamic traditions accepted and promoted plural marriage (an early form of social welfare) rather than just between one man and one woman. The irrelevance of the argument comes from the fact that marriage in the U.S. is a civil contract, not a religious one. That's why one can get married by a justice of the peace with no religious trappings.

And that's why, even in a religious marriage ceremony, the presiding official invokes state authority to make the marriage legal. One person's or one group's religious beliefs can never be the basis for laws under our Constitution.

The argument concerning children and marriage also is flawed. Historically, marriage has been more about property and inheritance than about having children. Thus, marriage equality is very much a civil-rights issue. Additionally, research shows conclusively that children raised by same-sex parents are just as well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents. Allowing same-sex couples to receive all the benefits of marriage will strengthen these families.

Arguing that marriage equality for homosexual couples will lead to other groups asking for other types of marriage also is irrelevant. They're totally separate issues. It's like saying that we shouldn't consider raising the speed limit on interstate highways because some group might demand that the limits be raised for suburban neighborhoods as well.

Marriage equality is a human right, and allowing all couples to enter into loving, long-term, stable, state-sanctioned marriages can only strengthen the fabric of our society.